Replies

I know you from your posts, and it was not my intention to suggest that you did not understand what was at stake.

I read a lot on FR that the President does not do a good enough in defining our criteria for winning. I just happen to believe that is not true. He has defined it over and over again.

TO say that there has been little in the way of progress seems to be selling what is really happening in Iraq short. There has been tremendous progress. It has not been swift, but it has been steady, yet it has been opposed. But that is war isn't it...active opposition to your stated objectives.

What? Did we honestly think that we would go into Iraq and not be opposed?

I do understand what is at stake. We have to win there in order to maintain our power and to create a deterrence to future aggression. Somewhere we have to draw a line and send a message to our enemies we are committed to defeating them because in the end, its the existence of our country that is on the line.

That's what Iraq is all about. We always knew the elements we removed from power after our invasion and Al Qaeda would oppose our objectives of making Iraq a free and democratic country that would be a model for the rest of the region and not pose a threat to its neighbors. That ought to be the minimum we should settle for as a victory criterion and its in keeping with America's deepest ideals. In short, the security of a friendly people is an investment in our own security as well. I don't think the President has tried to get across to the American people why the Bush Doctrine would both enhance our national security and help to free a violence-prone region of the world run by murderous despots. Its both conservative and Wilsonian. I haven't changed my mind about the Iraq War. I believed then and I believe now it was absolutely the right thing to do. Now we need to win.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

Clearly the MSM has made it seem as tho Baghdad represents the entire country of Iraq. Any disturbance in that city makes it easy to ignore the tremendous progress elsewhere.

I didn't need the President to articulate what we are doing in Iraq. I was here on 9/11, even tho the media would prefer us to forget that date.

Couple the MSM with our own pastime of Bush bashing, and we have a climate of discontent that resulted in a tantrum. Just my opinion.

If indeed it was the so called independents who voted D, we were unable to bring them to the republican side this time. In my experience, people registering I are usually dems in disguise.

I think you have made an outstanding point that seems to be lost in all the noise these days, both here on FR and of course in the clown-car media.

The President and his administration have clearly laid out all along the very 5 points you listed as conditions for victory and withdrawal. But nobody seems to be listening or even cares.

Personally I agree with you 100%: we are winning, progress has been nothing short of amazing considering the opposition, and I'm astounded anybody thinks this should have all been accomplished in barely 4 years. Thanks for your candor and standing up for what we all know is the truth but have been afraid to articulate ourselves.